Please prove that the missing transitional fossils in the fossil record aren't missing because we haven't found them yet.
I posted this in January of 2000 on the question of "missing fossils" and it may be useful here:
When I go to the store to buy shirts, the clerk says: "Your size is there, on shelf 3." So I go to shelf 3 and ... it's empty! So I say to the clerk: "My size is missing."This is a statement that is worth the clerk's attention. My size was supposed to be there. They have a system for laying out the sizes in specific locations. All the other sizes are there. The location for my size was known. But that location is empty. So it's clear that my size shirt is indeed missing. The word "missing" is being used correctly.
But in what sense can it be said that a fossil is missing? (I'm sure you don't mean there's been a robery in a museum.) Where -- precisely where -- do you say that it should be? How do you know it's supposed to be in that location? Is there a method you can describe for locating fossils? Do you have any kind of track record in pointing out the location of other fossils? Are they always where you say they should be? And now -- now! -- with all that going for you, show us what's missing.
I think this is the way a truly valid "missing fossil" argument can be made. Otherwise, all this "argument" is saying is something like this: "I would like to see more fossil evidence, but if such fossils exist, somewhere, they not yet been located."